First off, let me just be up front and note that before I get into any of this I am merely speculating. No one from SportsTime Ohio or the Indians has told me anything, I am simply just putting two and two together with some recent events surrounding the Indians.

That having been said, things are starting to get a little interesting with the Cleveland Indians of late. No, not because a new season is on the horizon, but because it looks like there may be some plans in motion to either sell the team or at least take a peek into the market to see who might be interested in buying the team.

Rumors came forth back in July that the Dolan ownership group was taking offers for SportsTime Ohio, their cable TV network and home of over 150 Indians television broadcasts a year. Not surprisingly those rumors have been denied, but where there is smoke there may be fire.

Suddenly in the past week I have been getting emails, texts and calls from all sorts of people with varying connections to me, and they all keep asking the same thing, “Are the Indians being put up for sale?”

I found it odd that with no knowledge of each other that all of these people would suddenly be asking such a question. Something may indeed be up, so here is a brief look at the situation to see if indeed the team could be up for sale.

From the sounds of things, the Dolan ownership may be putting out feelers to potential buyers. While it may not yet be public knowledge that the team is available for sale, the startup process to a long, convoluted process to sell the team may have already started quietly behind the scenes. The new CBA - which has drawn criticism for its unfairness to smaller market teams like the Indians - may be what finally pushed the Dolan ownership into considering offers for the team, and conceivably their cable TV network too.

The best evidence to support a possible looming sale of the Indians is their current payroll structure where not one single player has a guaranteed deal past this season. There are a few players that have club options for the 2013 season and there are some arbitration eligible players, but right now they have absolutely zero commitments in regard to salary for 2013. Nadda. With no long term monetary commitments it would certainly seem to make them more attractive to a potential buyer.

This may also explain what has been a strange offseason where the Indians have been very quiet on the free agent front and limited just about all contract discussions with players to a maximum of two years.

So who could be a potential suitor to buy the Indians? How about Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert?

In addition to the Cavaliers, Gilbert already owns the Lake Erie Monsters minor league hockey team and just recently purchased the arena football team the Cleveland Gladiators. With Quicken Loans Arena chock full of entertainment options between his three teams, he could look to continue to monopolize the sports market in the Cleveland area by purchasing the Indians.

One thing to remember is that before buying the Cavaliers back in 2005, Gilbert had tried to buy the Milwaukee Brewers, so interest in a Major League Baseball team is certainly there. With his new casino opening up later this year in downtown Cleveland, he could look at ways to use his sports teams to tie into it, and having a baseball team in town for 81 games a year might be inviting.

If there ever was an owner that would be a perfect fit for the Indians, it would be Gilbert. Not because he would spend lots of money – I have news for you, his spending will be based on team revenues just like it has with the Dolan’s – but because of the big shadow the Indians would get out from under with the Dolan ownership. I have often shared my feelings how I think Larry and Paul Dolan are misunderstood by the fan base, but Gilbert is a hero in this city right now, and with his money from Quicken Loans, expanding his Flash Seats setup to the Indians, and getting all the teams onto one big giant Cleveland sports network might be too good to be true.

Like I said, it is merely speculation, but with the rumors of SportsTime Ohio being for sale, the Indians very cost-conscious offseason, and Gilbert buying up sports teams in the Cleveland area like a kid in a candy store…anything can happen.

GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:I still don't know what Dan Gilbert has done that makes him a great owner. He bought a team with the best player the Cavs will ever see already on it, and failed to keep him. Now they stink.

He allowed the Cavs to go way over the cap into the hard cap and well into the luxury tax. He's a gambler, and he's no dummy, he knew that gamble was sure to pay him back with more tickets, parking, merchandise, signage sold. Same with the casino, he knows what it is costing, and he also knows full well what it will return.

And that is exactly what we need with the Tribe. Someone who will invest the money into the payroll, knowing they will make it back and then some with ticket sales, merchandise, signage, parking, hit dogs and beer, STO revenue.

Maybe STO is for sale because it's been run about as well as John McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign. Site has horrible original programming. Can't be making any kind of decent money. Indians TV ratings bumped last year, but the price per ad spot has to be one of the lowest in the market. STO needs to be run by somebody who knows what they're doing.

Everything Lastoria's post is, admittedly, speculation. I can't see the Dolans selling. They'd barely make a profit, if they made one at all, and that's simply not how business works. Plus, they're big fans living out a dream. There's a small chance that when Larry Dolan dies, son Paul isn't as attached to the team and will look to sell.

Gilbert's in for a rude awakening if he ever bought a baseball team. Double the home dates to worry about, a free market free agency system that requires you to overpay for everyone, no salary cap to level the playing field, unsustainable expectations from the fans, and most of all, a grind. Baseball teams aren't instant moneymakers. You can't get lucky enough to draft a Lebron James.

Everyone thinks this cat is some kind of savior. He's a beneficiary of falling into a good situation. The Indians aren't in the same spot the Cavs are in, nor will they ever be. Paying 25 guys instead of 10. 81 home dates instead of 41. Paying levels of the minor leagues. Draft picks. Scouts. Coaches. Large traveling parties to Goodyear, AZ.

At some point, dude's gonna be stretched too thin. That point would be if he bought the Indians.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

The Lerners own the wrong Cleveland team. In baseball you can be a bumbling moron, but if you're a billionaire you can buy your way out of it. The NFL rewards competency. So I'd be all for Randy bringing his ascot over to Progressive Field.

bookelly wrote:I'm sure there will be plenty of interested parties and Gilbert may or may not be one of them.

Like who?

Look at my avatar. Do you think I fucking know?

Lerner would be one option and a good one IMHO. Who else around C-town has 1,000,000,000+? Or it could even be an outside group or individual looking to make a splash. Point is, if/when Dolan sells the team, Gilbert isn't the only playa.

TCBinaflash wrote:Is there a precedent for teams being sold to not have any contractual obligations past the year being sold? I'd think that would be more problematic for a new owner than strategic business sale plan.

Contracts count against the overall value of the team. Plus you let the new owner be responsible immediately for the direction of the team.

If you want to sell a rental property, you clear all the tenets out first.

By the early '90s, he told the St. Petersburg Times he estimated his stake in American Ship at less than 2 percent of his net worth.

American had tried to diversify over the years, at one time experimenting with a process that made imitation crabmeat called surimi. It later tried unsuccessfully to win contracts to build cruise ships.

It was losing millions.

Last year (2009), shipbuilding no longer part of his world, Steinbrenner was No. 341 on the Forbes list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.2 billion.

Gilbert would absolutely have a bigger incentive to spend. If he brings in big name players, he doesn't just profit from higher attendence at the ballpark, he benefits from having more people downtown, some of which will go and lose a lot in his casino.

This team is clearly for sale. How many teams have 0 commitments beyond the current season? If its not for sale it should be, this is obviously not how you build a long term winner.

By the early '90s, he told the St. Petersburg Times he estimated his stake in American Ship at less than 2 percent of his net worth.

American had tried to diversify over the years, at one time experimenting with a process that made imitation crabmeat called surimi. It later tried unsuccessfully to win contracts to build cruise ships.

It was losing millions.

Last year (2009), shipbuilding no longer part of his world, Steinbrenner was No. 341 on the Forbes list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.2 billion.

Fucking profiteer that wasn't interested in titles.

So how many I told you sos do I get if Gilbert doesn't light money on fire for wins? All I'm asking.

Wondering why you have to either light money on fire or squirrel away every last nickel. I don't understand the polarity.

I just don't.

Steinbrenner didn't do it either. They Yankees made him obscenely rich while he spent bags of money.

I don't see why the sign of a good owner would be one who recklessly spends himself into bankruptcy either.

Some begrudge Gilbert getting richer while owning the Cavs. I do not. Not if he spends like a sailor on the team, in the community and wherever else while he happens to get richer.

It's not an either/or scenario necessarily.

That's all I'm saying. That and he's bever given an indication he won't spend when he should or when it benefits the team. Yes, he trusted the wrong people to spend it on the wrong people, but it was a big outlay a money that he signed off on. And if that's because he was also raking it in hand over fist, who gives a shit?

e0y2e3 wrote:

peeker643 wrote:2009 Forbes had Steinbrenner's worth at $1.2billion

He bought the Yankees for $8.8million with multiple partners.

Maybe it was that shipping business that made up the difference?

By the early '90s, he told the St. Petersburg Times he estimated his stake in American Ship at less than 2 percent of his net worth.

American had tried to diversify over the years, at one time experimenting with a process that made imitation crabmeat called surimi. It later tried unsuccessfully to win contracts to build cruise ships.

It was losing millions.

Last year (2009), shipbuilding no longer part of his world, Steinbrenner was No. 341 on the Forbes list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.2 billion.

Fucking profiteer that wasn't interested in titles.

So how many I told you sos do I get if Gilbert doesn't light money on fire for wins? All I'm asking.

peeker643 wrote:Sorry for the 'above the quotes' response but work computer blows.

Wondering why you have to either light money on fire or squirrel away every last nickel. I don't understand the polarity.

I just don't.

Steinbrenner didn't do it either. They Yankees made him obscenely rich while he spent bags of money.

I don't see why the sign of a good owner would be one who recklessly spends himself into bankruptcy either.

Some begrudge Gilbert getting richer while owning the Cavs. I do not. Not if he spends like a sailor on the team, in the community and wherever else while he happens to get richer.

It's not an either/or scenario necessarily.

That's all I'm saying. That and he's bever given an indication he won't spend when he should or when it benefits the team. Yes, he trusted the wrong people to spend it on the wrong people, but it was a big outlay a money that he signed off on. And if that's because he was also raking it in hand over fist, who gives a shit?

I agree with this. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be mad a Gilbert for making money.

And I don't care if Gilbert buys the Indians or not. I do think that he would be a better owner than Dolan, though. But I don't think he would, or should, spend significantly more than Dolan does. I think the advantage of Gilbert is he might be a little more willing to take risks.

It seems to me that Dolan's biggest drawback isn't that he won't spend money. It's that he's completely risk averse right now. I want someone who's more willing to roll the dice when thte time cmoes.

peeker643 wrote:Sorry for the 'above the quotes' response but work computer blows.

Wondering why you have to either light money on fire or squirrel away every last nickel. I don't understand the polarity.

I just don't.

Steinbrenner didn't do it either. They Yankees made him obscenely rich while he spent bags of money.

I don't see why the sign of a good owner would be one who recklessly spends himself into bankruptcy either.

Some begrudge Gilbert getting richer while owning the Cavs. I do not. Not if he spends like a sailor on the team, in the community and wherever else while he happens to get richer.

It's not an either/or scenario necessarily.

That's all I'm saying. That and he's bever given an indication he won't spend when he should or when it benefits the team. Yes, he trusted the wrong people to spend it on the wrong people, but it was a big outlay a money that he signed off on. And if that's because he was also raking it in hand over fist, who gives a shit?

Peeks, you make far too much sense here. Almost nothing in life is a zero-sum game and this isn't one here.

peeker643 wrote:Sorry for the 'above the quotes' response but work computer blows.

Wondering why you have to either light money on fire or squirrel away every last nickel. I don't understand the polarity.

I just don't.

Steinbrenner didn't do it either. They Yankees made him obscenely rich while he spent bags of money.

I don't see why the sign of a good owner would be one who recklessly spends himself into bankruptcy either.

Some begrudge Gilbert getting richer while owning the Cavs. I do not. Not if he spends like a sailor on the team, in the community and wherever else while he happens to get richer.

It's not an either/or scenario necessarily.

That's all I'm saying. That and he's bever given an indication he won't spend when he should or when it benefits the team. Yes, he trusted the wrong people to spend it on the wrong people, but it was a big outlay a money that he signed off on. And if that's because he was also raking it in hand over fist, who gives a shit?

e0y2e3 wrote:

peeker643 wrote:2009 Forbes had Steinbrenner's worth at $1.2billion

He bought the Yankees for $8.8million with multiple partners.

Maybe it was that shipping business that made up the difference?

By the early '90s, he told the St. Petersburg Times he estimated his stake in American Ship at less than 2 percent of his net worth.

American had tried to diversify over the years, at one time experimenting with a process that made imitation crabmeat called surimi. It later tried unsuccessfully to win contracts to build cruise ships.

It was losing millions.

Last year (2009), shipbuilding no longer part of his world, Steinbrenner was No. 341 on the Forbes list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.2 billion.

Fucking profiteer that wasn't interested in titles.

So how many I told you sos do I get if Gilbert doesn't light money on fire for wins? All I'm asking.

As even mother said correctly, my only point through all of this has been that we don't know. Not looking to fight with you regarding it, but rest assured if Gilbert buys the Indians and if he doesn't spend people that have spent years posting in here about how great a baseball owner he will be will be getting never ending I told you sos. And if the opposite happens I deserve crap.

The bigger question you need to ask about Gilbert, or any potential owner, would be "Would MLB be willing to entertain him as a potential owner".

Given the very public tirade he went on after LBJ left Cleveland, I'd think that it would be a pretty big strike against him. MLB likes its owners to be a bit less public than that. Look what happened to the LA Dodgers owner. MLB basically threw him to the curb after all that craziness with his divorce. Look at Cuban. The guy's got more money than God and he can't get a team to save his life, and he's tried multiple times.

Don't see them taking a shot on a guy who goes on a public trash-talking spree when his marquee player leaves.

DanErie wrote:The new CBA - which has drawn criticism for its unfairness to smaller market teams like the Indians - may be what finally pushed the Dolan ownership into considering offers for the team, and conceivably their cable TV network too.

By far my favorite part of this story.

The 2/3 of the league that operates under the disguise of small market constraints is unhappy with the result of the latest CBS, which they signed off on without a moment of thought.

You have the votes boys. Make changes. Don't continue to get your lunch money taken then go crying to your mom because you are hungry.

WiscTribeFan wrote:The bigger question you need to ask about Gilbert, or any potential owner, would be "Would MLB be willing to entertain him as a potential owner".

Given the very public tirade he went on after LBJ left Cleveland, I'd think that it would be a pretty big strike against him. MLB likes its owners to be a bit less public than that. Look what happened to the LA Dodgers owner. MLB basically threw him to the curb after all that craziness with his divorce. Look at Cuban. The guy's got more money than God and he can't get a team to save his life, and he's tried multiple times.

Don't see them taking a shot on a guy who goes on a public trash-talking spree when his marquee player leaves.

Sometimes it isn't about the money.

I don't pretend to know anything about Dan Gilbert or Quicken Loans bottom line, but their is a precedence for a MLB/NBA owner and its Jerry Reinsdorf and I believe he has done a more then Okay job owning both the White Sox, and Bulls.

I have heard that since Reinsdorf the MLB as a whole tends to shy away from multi-sport owners (an excuse to why they didn't let Cuban join the club) but they did allow NE Sports Ventures to purchases Liverpool FC since, which has had mixed results.

"I don't think they're building chemical weapons in Berea. But they might be. I can't say for sure."Chuck Klosterman

WiscTribeFan wrote:The bigger question you need to ask about Gilbert, or any potential owner, would be "Would MLB be willing to entertain him as a potential owner".

Given the very public tirade he went on after LBJ left Cleveland, I'd think that it would be a pretty big strike against him. MLB likes its owners to be a bit less public than that. Look what happened to the LA Dodgers owner. MLB basically threw him to the curb after all that craziness with his divorce. Look at Cuban. The guy's got more money than God and he can't get a team to save his life, and he's tried multiple times.

Don't see them taking a shot on a guy who goes on a public trash-talking spree when his marquee player leaves.

Sometimes it isn't about the money.

Are you saying that Frank McCourt was "thrown to the curb" because of a crazy divorce?

Craziness of the divorce asside, that dude could not be a bigger piece of shit. He leveraged every last penny out of that franchise that he could with absolutely no conscience about any consequences to his actions, to the point that there was a real possibility that he wouldn't make payroll. At least the Wilpon's were just a couple of Mooks. McCourt actively engaged in damn near destroying that franchise. He has a legitimate argument as the worst sports owner in the history of sports owners.

WiscTribeFan wrote:The bigger question you need to ask about Gilbert, or any potential owner, would be "Would MLB be willing to entertain him as a potential owner".

Given the very public tirade he went on after LBJ left Cleveland, I'd think that it would be a pretty big strike against him. MLB likes its owners to be a bit less public than that. Look what happened to the LA Dodgers owner. MLB basically threw him to the curb after all that craziness with his divorce. Look at Cuban. The guy's got more money than God and he can't get a team to save his life, and he's tried multiple times.

Don't see them taking a shot on a guy who goes on a public trash-talking spree when his marquee player leaves.

Sometimes it isn't about the money.

Are you saying that Frank McCourt was "thrown to the curb" because of a crazy divorce?

Craziness of the divorce asside, that dude could not be a bigger piece of shit. He leveraged every last penny out of that franchise that he could with absolutely no conscience about any consequences to his actions, to the point that there was a real possibility that he wouldn't make payroll. At least the Wilpon's were just a couple of Mooks. McCourt actively engaged in damn near destroying that franchise. He has a legitimate argument as the worst sports owner in the history of sports owners.

And baseball knew a lot of that when they let him in. He had nothing in terms of assets to put down on the team, leveraged it to the hilt including the biggest case of nepotism since Buford T Justice hired Junior as deputy and then mismanaged the piss out of it.

Baseball recognized their complicity and then buried it in the desert next to McCourt's rotting corpse.

WiscTribeFan wrote:The bigger question you need to ask about Gilbert, or any potential owner, would be "Would MLB be willing to entertain him as a potential owner".

Given the very public tirade he went on after LBJ left Cleveland, I'd think that it would be a pretty big strike against him. MLB likes its owners to be a bit less public than that. Look what happened to the LA Dodgers owner. MLB basically threw him to the curb after all that craziness with his divorce. Look at Cuban. The guy's got more money than God and he can't get a team to save his life, and he's tried multiple times.

Don't see them taking a shot on a guy who goes on a public trash-talking spree when his marquee player leaves.

Sometimes it isn't about the money.

I don't pretend to know anything about Dan Gilbert or Quicken Loans bottom line, but their is a precedence for a MLB/NBA owner and its Jerry Reinsdorf and I believe he has done a more then Okay job owning both the White Sox, and Bulls.

I have heard that since Reinsdorf the MLB as a whole tends to shy away from multi-sport owners (an excuse to why they didn't let Cuban join the club) but they did allow NE Sports Ventures to purchases Liverpool FC since, which has had mixed results.

If you think Reinsdorf is a good owner, well, you have really, really bad taste

WiscTribeFan wrote:The bigger question you need to ask about Gilbert, or any potential owner, would be "Would MLB be willing to entertain him as a potential owner".

Given the very public tirade he went on after LBJ left Cleveland, I'd think that it would be a pretty big strike against him. MLB likes its owners to be a bit less public than that. Look what happened to the LA Dodgers owner. MLB basically threw him to the curb after all that craziness with his divorce. Look at Cuban. The guy's got more money than God and he can't get a team to save his life, and he's tried multiple times.

Don't see them taking a shot on a guy who goes on a public trash-talking spree when his marquee player leaves.

Sometimes it isn't about the money.

I don't pretend to know anything about Dan Gilbert or Quicken Loans bottom line, but their is a precedence for a MLB/NBA owner and its Jerry Reinsdorf and I believe he has done a more then Okay job owning both the White Sox, and Bulls.

I have heard that since Reinsdorf the MLB as a whole tends to shy away from multi-sport owners (an excuse to why they didn't let Cuban join the club) but they did allow NE Sports Ventures to purchases Liverpool FC since, which has had mixed results.

If you think Reinsdorf is a good owner, well, you have really, really bad taste

He has made mistakes. He may be cheaper then the citizens of Chicago would like, and has Michael Jordan to thank for 6 out of his 7 championships, but the man has had his fare share of success as a Sports owner and business man.

"I don't think they're building chemical weapons in Berea. But they might be. I can't say for sure."Chuck Klosterman

The reason that MLB probably won't be keen on Gilbert has nothing to do with the Cavs. His very public tirade against LeBron would probably not make him a popular choice for the old boys who run MLB. These guys don't like Wild Cards. It's the same reason Marc Cuban will never own a MLB team as well.

WiscTribeFan wrote:The bigger question you need to ask about Gilbert, or any potential owner, would be "Would MLB be willing to entertain him as a potential owner".

Given the very public tirade he went on after LBJ left Cleveland, I'd think that it would be a pretty big strike against him. MLB likes its owners to be a bit less public than that. Look what happened to the LA Dodgers owner. MLB basically threw him to the curb after all that craziness with his divorce. Look at Cuban. The guy's got more money than God and he can't get a team to save his life, and he's tried multiple times.

Don't see them taking a shot on a guy who goes on a public trash-talking spree when his marquee player leaves.

Sometimes it isn't about the money.

Are you saying that Frank McCourt was "thrown to the curb" because of a crazy divorce?

Craziness of the divorce asside, that dude could not be a bigger piece of shit. He leveraged every last penny out of that franchise that he could with absolutely no conscience about any consequences to his actions, to the point that there was a real possibility that he wouldn't make payroll. At least the Wilpon's were just a couple of Mooks. McCourt actively engaged in damn near destroying that franchise. He has a legitimate argument as the worst sports owner in the history of sports owners.

I think the public nastiness/stupidity of the divorce made it easier for them to force him out, for all the reasons you said above.

There's no chance in hell that Bud Selig allows Gilbert to purchase the Tribe. IMO, Stern runs the ownership domain like the head of the Good Ole Boys Club. He decides who's in and who's out in a 'go fuck yourself' manner, which is complete bullshit to me. Case in point: McCourt. That assclown had no business whatsoever in owning the Dodgers. Selig let that shit happen but won't allow Cuban or Gilbert, two guys that would love to spend some serious cash in an effort to produce some winning baseball clubs. I'm not saying that both these guys would go Steinbrenner mode but damn, they'll run some more efficient org's.

Can't stand Selig or Stern, and am barely capable of not hating Goodell. I believe Stern just got an extension too, that asshole.

Seems like it's just the same rumor being rehashed over and over. It started with that STO rumor and people keep passing it around.

I'm a pessimist about Cleveland's baseball franchise staying in town. So, it wouldn't surprise me if someone wanted to move this team as it could be at a 'high water' mark for it's value from here on out. There will never be another stadium built and the current one is only getting older and more dated as the years roll on.

Toxicadam wrote:I'm a pessimist about Cleveland's baseball franchise staying in town. So, it wouldn't surprise me if someone wanted to move this team as it could be at a 'high water' mark for it's value from here on out. There will never be another stadium built and the current one is only getting older and more dated as the years roll on.

"The fucking Who...... If I want to watch old people run around ill go set fire to a nursing home." - CDT

The 2/3 of the league that operates under the disguise of small market constraints is unhappy with the result of the latest CBS, which they signed off on without a moment of thought.

You have the votes boys. Make changes. Don't continue to get your lunch money taken then go crying to your mom because you are hungry.

One, I'd like to know where you found out that they signed off without a moment of thought. And two, its just not that simple. There are a lot of sides to please in a CBA negotiation. The small-market owners did get overdue some lasting changes when it came to revenue sharing, but they gave up their only chance to outspend the larger markets - in the draft.

The 2/3 of the league that operates under the disguise of small market constraints is unhappy with the result of the latest CBS, which they signed off on without a moment of thought.

You have the votes boys. Make changes. Don't continue to get your lunch money taken then go crying to your mom because you are hungry.

One, I'd like to know where you found out that they signed off without a moment of thought. And two, its just not that simple. There are a lot of sides to please in a CBA negotiation. The small-market owners did get overdue some lasting changes when it came to revenue sharing, but they gave up their only chance to outspend the larger markets - in the draft.

Yes, they got help with revenue sharing. More profit for shitty teams! Awesome.

I say there wasn't a moment of thought, because, well, um, it got approved in about 4 minutes.

If you are going to complain about the system not being fair in your chances to compete, and you have the majority who are in your boat? Christ. Do something about it.

e0y2e3 wrote:Of course, it's not like those six in the NBA actually got anything competitive or balanced achieved, they just got a bigger piece of the pie to go away.

Not going to argue with you about it, because you obviously are more in tune with it than I. But I would say, from an external point of view, they got a little something in the way of more balance. And they were starting from a much better place than baseball in terms of balance, so a small win counts. Short of a real hard cap or franchise tag...there wasn't a whole lot to shoot for.